Dear SR:

Would it help if I counter your list of Palestinian civilian deaths with a list of Israeli civilian dead? Are we reduced to competing on the length of our death lists to achieve dramatic effect?

With the exception of Hamas and other terror organisations, no one has any interest in civilians deaths. For many reasons it's certainly not in Israel's interest to harm civilians, including internal/external public opinion in addition to the obvious humanitarian aspect and the risk of stirring up Palestinian emotions. To believe, as you do, that they deliberately target civilians is illogical and makes no sense. There's a world difference between accidentally causing deaths after issuing warnings, and the deliberate, calculated targeting of civilians with the intent to terrorise and maximise death toll.

You ask, “So what is [if] Hamas was to say at the start of the conflict; 'We are issuing a warning to all those south of Jerusalem that we will be firing rockets into this area and all civilians will need to evacuate for their own safety' – would that just make it all okay?” – this is an absurd example that is akin to Israel warning Gazans that there will be a strike “somewhere in Gaza”. “south of Jerusalem” is an area close to half of Israel's terrirory and many times the size of Gaza, making such a warning absolutely useless. It's completely different to the leaflet dropping, phone calls, text messages and ‘roof knocking’ that warn civilians of an impending strike on a specific location in response to a terror attack.

Let’s indulge your assumption, for a moment, that the Israelis are in fact interested in killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible. Do you have any doubt that they could have eliminated the entire population of Gaza over the first few days of the current conflict, with no need to risk the lives of any Israeli servicemen by deploying ground forces? Why would the Israelis warn civilians prior to strikes if they are targeting them? Once again, your assumption lacks any common sense and is plain silly.

Cont -->

--> Cont

From claiming that “the vast majority of those in attendance” in that nightclub are Israeli servicemen you are now down to 60%, a small step in the right direction towards reality. Of course your assumption of 60% service personnel collapses in a heap once we include the other targets chosen by your brave freedom fighters, such as Israeli buses and shopping centres. Unless you are also saying that only army recruits ride buses and go shopping in Israel?

If you truly believe your claims that the potential presence of Israeli servicemen justifies blowing up a nightclub, then, as I previously pointed out, you can use this same reasoning to justify any terror attack in Israel, whatever the target is. Your logic, therefore, is no different to that of any extremist terrorist organisation.

Your elaborate quote regarding the citizens of Sderot is largely irrelevant, we know that Hamas rockets are threatening half of Israel and not only the tiny community of Sderot. In fact we also know that quite a number of those rockets fell on Palestinian communities in the West Bank, and even within Gaza itself. In any case who is the more resilient party is besides the point. I have no doubt that the Gaza civilians are indeed brave and resilient, one would have to be resilient to be able to live under Hamas oppression for so long.

I see you still have no reply to the question I put to you earlier.

AVW,

<<Would it help if I counter your list of Palestinian civilian deaths >>

I don't really think Steele is too concerned about civilian deaths, be they Palestinian or Israeli. He only ever seems to develop great concern about such things when they're caused by Israeli or US weaponry. I think it's all part of a cleverly crafted sales pitch.

Dear Avw,

Thank you, we now have the nub.

You wrote;

“If you truly believe your claims that the potential presence of Israeli servicemen justifies blowing up a nightclub, then, as I previously pointed out, you can use this same reasoning to justify any terror attack in Israel, whatever the target is. Your logic, therefore, is no different to that of any extremist terrorist organisation.”

Which of course could just as easily be written as;

If you truly believe the claims that the potential presence of Hamas members justifies blowing up their home or their mosque or dropping bombs next to UN schools, then, as I have been at pains to point out, you can use this same reasoning to justify any terror attack in Gaza, whatever the target is. The Likud/IDF logic, therefore, is no different to that of any extremist terrorist organisation.

Enough said.

Steele,

That really is a silly comparison - are Israeli nightclubs full of active servicemen launching rocket attacks on Gaza ? Are you suggesting that the IDF is exploiting civilian facilities, such as nightclubs, schools or hospitals, from which to attack Gaza ?

Given Hamas' declaration that Israel should never exist and that all Jews should be expelled, pushed into the sea, I'm beginning to see the sense - from Israel's point of view - in establishing settlements on the West Bank and, if Hamas maintains that position, pushing the boundary of Israel across to Jordan.

After all, if Hamas ever got control of all of Palestine, after Israel demolished every settlement and pulled entirely out of the West Bank, do even you think that Hamas would not launch rocket attacks from all along the new borders ?

For Israel, it's existential, visceral; for Hamas, it's merely scoring a point for Allah, poking a stick in a non-Muslim's eye.

Joe

to Julianutter.

If the United Nations passed a resolution ordering you to commit suicide by drinking a cup of hemlock, then I am sure you would chugalug it with gay abandon. You would not dream of doing anything "illegal".

But the Israelis are not that stupid. They have no intention of committing suicide just to please the UN.